<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 13/02/14 15:45, Jon Masamitsu wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:52FCDA91.6010808@oracle.com" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/12/14 11:51 PM, Stefan Karlsson
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:52FC7989.2040603@oracle.com" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 13/02/14 03:14, Jon Masamitsu
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:52FC2A77.20403@oracle.com" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
Stefan,<br>
<br>
I understand now that the same work is being<br>
done (maybe in a different place) and that<br>
the amount of extra work being<br>
done (the call to test_set_oops_do_mark())<br>
will scale with the number of nmethods. <br>
<br>
Is that correct?<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Yes, that's correct.<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Ok. <br>
<br>
Change looks good. Thanks for an explanation of<br>
the performance measurements done.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Thanks, Jon.<br>
<br>
StefanK<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:52FCDA91.6010808@oracle.com" type="cite"> <br>
Jon<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:52FC7989.2040603@oracle.com" type="cite">
StefanK<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:52FC2A77.20403@oracle.com" type="cite"> <br>
Jon<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/12/2014 11:40 AM, Jon
Masamitsu wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:52FBCE32.2000708@oracle.com" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/12/2014 1:43 AM, Stefan
Karlsson wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:52FB4245.1030901@oracle.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
Hi all,<br>
<br>
Please, review this patch to remove the do_code_roots
parameter from SharedHeap::process_strong_roots.<br>
<br>
The changes done are:<br>
- Change the code to rely on the ScannningOption so
parameter instead of do_code_roots.<br>
- Change GenMarkSweep and G1MarkSweep to adjust the code
roots with the help of process_strong_roots instead of
doing it as a separate phase after process_strong_roots.<br>
- Removed the unused
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
FalseClosure.<br>
<br>
After this patch the adjust phase of the GenMarkSweep and
G1MarkSweep will use the generic code in
process_strong_roots, which mark/claim the nmethods before
they are processed. Before the patch these two Serial Old
GC adjust phases skipped the mark/claim part. No
noticeable Serial Old GC time increases were found when
this patch was performance tested.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Does this mean ("adjust phase ...") that the "mark/claim"
does not have any affect<br>
on later processing? Or actually does nothing (even though
the closures<br>
are applied)? Which benchmarks did you use for performance
testing?<br>
<br>
Jon<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:52FB4245.1030901@oracle.com"
type="cite"> <br>
This cleanup is needed/wanted for G1 Class Unloading.<br>
<br>
Webrev:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Estefank/8034761/webrev.00/">http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~stefank/8034761/webrev.00/</a><br>
<br>
RFE:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8034761">https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8034761</a><br>
<br>
thanks,<br>
StefanK<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>